Aqa sociology unit 4 crime & deviance- january 27th 2012 !!!!!!!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Orla369
Hi, could someone explain to me how you would go about on answering this question? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee
"Can sociology be involved in policy making and should it?"
"Can sociology be involved in policy making and should it?"
Talk about how sociology informs social policy and vice versa. Example to use is Giddens, I think a lot of his findings helped form some of New Labour's policies...but double check that.
For the 33 marker, if you struggle with the question, just make sure you write something about different theories and methods and you shoud get at least 10 marks according to my teacher...This could mean the difference between a grade. Still doesn't stop me being nervous haha
Original post by Lauren-Maree
For the 33 marker, if you struggle with the question, just make sure you write something about different theories and methods and you shoud get at least 10 marks according to my teacher...This could mean the difference between a grade. Still doesn't stop me being nervous haha
How do you mention methods in the 33 mark
I done my mock on this the other day and got 37/90 giving me an E and the rest of the class got U's, isn't were encouraging and starting to convince myself that I will need to retake in summer, hardly learnt theory and methods and its the biggest part :/
Original post by scaredofexams
How do you mention methods in the 33 mark
Its a theory and methods essay...positivism and anti postivist methods
actually gonna cry, DO NOT HAVE A CLUE on anything to do with the 33 marker thats going to come up. seriously the AQA book is a load of crap, soo hard 
what is it even about?
what is it even about?
Original post by laurieee
Original post by laurieee
I am too haven't done any revision yet. I really need an A aswell. Does anyone know of any revision material on the internet? I don't like the text book. It's in a weird order and not very clear. Help!
haven't done any revision yet. I really need an A aswell. Does anyone know of any revision material on the internet? I don't like the text book. It's in a weird order and not very clear. Help!I agree. It is a poor text book!!!
I suggest breaking the revision down a bit. List the topics. Take them one at a time. For each do the following: learn a set of key FACTS regarding it.... such as crime stats, examples with dates etc. This is the evidence based stuff you will need for the essays. Learn these using memory techniques such as making up words that begin with the starting letter of each fact to prompt your recall. Sometimes it works to visual a picture that sums the fact up for you... such as a person wearing clothes relevant to the dates you are trying to remember or standing in the place you need to know and holding up a sign with the key fact or facts on it. Then you recall the picture to access all the points you needs. If you are a verbal learner get someone to ask you to repeat the facts to them. Some people make lists or write out the facts over and over. Anything that works for you.
Thats the bit that needs to get into your memory system.
The other part is the concepts and ideas. This is easy peasy if you've understood them clearly in the first place as its a case of listing them out in a shortened version and making sure you have some facts and examples in your head to go with them. If though at this point you are still struggling with some ideas and concepts then take a deep breath. Sit down and try to break the ideas you are struggling with into much smaller parts and working through them a small piece at a time. Again if you are a verbal learner then try explaining the ideas out loud to someone and you'll either realise you don't have clue or that it is all actually getting clearer as you explain. If you don't have a clue then revise that bit over again, ask your tutor to explain it, read it, ask someone to ask you questions such as 'what does that mean?' and if you don't know the answer look it up there and then and tell them. Other techniques are to pretend you are doing a talk on a particular subject, arrange the points on a piece of paper and act out the 'speech' to an imaginary audience. You'll spot bits on which you are weak. If you're visual by nature try mind-mapping out the ideas with pictures etc. Close your eyes and try to remember what it all looks like. If you're systematic then make lists and count up the number of points you'd need to make about that topic. ie there are five points to make about ethnicity and crime. I have two examples per point. The five points demonstrate two different ways of looking at the issue etc. You memorise the numbers and in the exam whan a question comes up you can recall 'I need five points here' etc.
The whole secret of revision is to break things into small units which you can learn more easily than huge chunks and to use techniques that get things into your head. By the time you've learnt lots of the small units then you've understood and memorised a massive amount that would have been much too big and overwhelming to even think about at the beginning.
Good luck everyone!
Thats the bit that needs to get into your memory system.
The other part is the concepts and ideas. This is easy peasy if you've understood them clearly in the first place as its a case of listing them out in a shortened version and making sure you have some facts and examples in your head to go with them. If though at this point you are still struggling with some ideas and concepts then take a deep breath. Sit down and try to break the ideas you are struggling with into much smaller parts and working through them a small piece at a time. Again if you are a verbal learner then try explaining the ideas out loud to someone and you'll either realise you don't have clue or that it is all actually getting clearer as you explain. If you don't have a clue then revise that bit over again, ask your tutor to explain it, read it, ask someone to ask you questions such as 'what does that mean?' and if you don't know the answer look it up there and then and tell them. Other techniques are to pretend you are doing a talk on a particular subject, arrange the points on a piece of paper and act out the 'speech' to an imaginary audience. You'll spot bits on which you are weak. If you're visual by nature try mind-mapping out the ideas with pictures etc. Close your eyes and try to remember what it all looks like. If you're systematic then make lists and count up the number of points you'd need to make about that topic. ie there are five points to make about ethnicity and crime. I have two examples per point. The five points demonstrate two different ways of looking at the issue etc. You memorise the numbers and in the exam whan a question comes up you can recall 'I need five points here' etc.
The whole secret of revision is to break things into small units which you can learn more easily than huge chunks and to use techniques that get things into your head. By the time you've learnt lots of the small units then you've understood and memorised a massive amount that would have been much too big and overwhelming to even think about at the beginning.
Good luck everyone!
(edited 12 years ago)
can someone breifly explain what the 33 marker is about?
Original post by Jessica_94
can someone breifly explain what the 33 marker is about?
theory or methods.
so theory would be a question on one of the following:
functionalism, marxism, feminism, interactionism, post modernism, social policy, is science/sociology a science, value freedom
methods will either be general like positivism or interpretivism or would be focusing on a method such as observation, experiments, interviews etc.
at least i think that's how it works!
Is everyone on here doing Unit 4 crime and deviance?
I know for a fact that I'm going to fail this, or not do as well as I need at least, and will need to re take in the summer. My Psychology exam is on the same day, and I find Psychology harder, so I'm revising for that now instead of Sociology because I'd hate to have to do all of Psychology in the summer!
Original post by beccaa:)
does anybody have model answers for any section of this eaxm???
“ Sociology cannot and should not be value free” using sociological knowledge discuss this statement (33 marks)
Sociologists disagree about whether sociology can be value free. Value free research is research that is not bias, and does not reflect the researcher’s values or beliefs. Value free research is therefore objective. However, many sociologists have recognised the importance of value relevance. This is how values can affect the research process such as methods used or chosen topic to research.
Positivists argue sociology can be value free. Positivist research attempts to use scientific methodology to explain social phenomena. They therefore believe their research is totally objective and free from biases. Comte believed sociology to be scientific, and thus could be value free if social phenomena were regarded as social facts. Durkheim’s work on suicide shows how positivist research attempts to be value free i.e. by observing social phenomena. However, Durkheim’s work is criticised, particularly by relativists, whom claim that in fact Durkheim’s work could not be explained as positivism, but in fact realism. As Durkheim’s ‘observable facts’ were in fact unobservable e.g. integration.
Although Weber was an interpretivist, he too believed that sociology could be value free. Weber identified the concept of value relevance (how values influence research). Weber argued researchers should avoid making value judgements in research e.g. whether they believe something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He argued that research should be conducted from a value laden perspective. Weber recognised that once a topic is conceptualised it can be tested by others and objective research is then possible.
However, the research process itself makes value freedom very difficult to achieve. Values are influential throughout the research process; from choosing a topic, defining concepts, choosing methodology and recording results.
On the other hand, interpretivists such as Becker argue that value free research is not possible in sociology. Becker argues all research is contaminated with beliefs. He argues that sociologists cannot avoid taking sides because analysis of behaviour is from the viewpoint of the social actor. Interpretivists argue sociologists should use qualitative methods to understand people’s subjective motives. This is why sociology is very different from and cannot be like the natural sciences Comte and Durkheim compared it to. Although Becker argued that the researcher should not let their sympathies for one group render their research invalid- value freedom is not possible, but validity is.
The political alignment of some social theories also means that value freedom is not possible. For example feminists believe that research should aim to give women a voice, and aim to end patriarchy. This is similar to Marxist theory, which believes the working classes are exploited by the ruling classes, and that classless communism is the only way to end the ills of society. Thus research by Marxist or feminist researchers for example may be bias in order to meet their political agenda or aims e.g. to end patriarchy.
Furthermore, social constructionists such as Luckmann and Beger argue that there is not objective knowledge, because all knowledge is bound up by discourse (or a particular way of seeing the world). Similarly, Gouldner argues there is a myth of value freedom in sociology. He argues that because of domain assumptions (similarly to paradigms). Gomm also argues value freedom is not possible, as sociologists themselves are members of society, which they then study. Their own subjective values and assumptions will thus influence their research.
In conclusion, whilst value freedom may not be totally possible, as values can penetrate each stage of the research process, as Becker points out the sociologist should avoid letting any values expose their research to invalidity. Research should be carried out objectively as possible, even if qualitative and subjective methods are being used.
Original post by laurajones24
“ Sociology cannot and should not be value free” using sociological knowledge discuss this statement (33 marks)
Sociologists disagree about whether sociology can be value free. Value free research is research that is not bias, and does not reflect the researcher’s values or beliefs. Value free research is therefore objective. However, many sociologists have recognised the importance of value relevance. This is how values can affect the research process such as methods used or chosen topic to research.
Positivists argue sociology can be value free. Positivist research attempts to use scientific methodology to explain social phenomena. They therefore believe their research is totally objective and free from biases. Comte believed sociology to be scientific, and thus could be value free if social phenomena were regarded as social facts. Durkheim’s work on suicide shows how positivist research attempts to be value free i.e. by observing social phenomena. However, Durkheim’s work is criticised, particularly by relativists, whom claim that in fact Durkheim’s work could not be explained as positivism, but in fact realism. As Durkheim’s ‘observable facts’ were in fact unobservable e.g. integration.
Although Weber was an interpretivist, he too believed that sociology could be value free. Weber identified the concept of value relevance (how values influence research). Weber argued researchers should avoid making value judgements in research e.g. whether they believe something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He argued that research should be conducted from a value laden perspective. Weber recognised that once a topic is conceptualised it can be tested by others and objective research is then possible.
However, the research process itself makes value freedom very difficult to achieve. Values are influential throughout the research process; from choosing a topic, defining concepts, choosing methodology and recording results.
On the other hand, interpretivists such as Becker argue that value free research is not possible in sociology. Becker argues all research is contaminated with beliefs. He argues that sociologists cannot avoid taking sides because analysis of behaviour is from the viewpoint of the social actor. Interpretivists argue sociologists should use qualitative methods to understand people’s subjective motives. This is why sociology is very different from and cannot be like the natural sciences Comte and Durkheim compared it to. Although Becker argued that the researcher should not let their sympathies for one group render their research invalid- value freedom is not possible, but validity is.
The political alignment of some social theories also means that value freedom is not possible. For example feminists believe that research should aim to give women a voice, and aim to end patriarchy. This is similar to Marxist theory, which believes the working classes are exploited by the ruling classes, and that classless communism is the only way to end the ills of society. Thus research by Marxist or feminist researchers for example may be bias in order to meet their political agenda or aims e.g. to end patriarchy.
Furthermore, social constructionists such as Luckmann and Beger argue that there is not objective knowledge, because all knowledge is bound up by discourse (or a particular way of seeing the world). Similarly, Gouldner argues there is a myth of value freedom in sociology. He argues that because of domain assumptions (similarly to paradigms). Gomm also argues value freedom is not possible, as sociologists themselves are members of society, which they then study. Their own subjective values and assumptions will thus influence their research.
In conclusion, whilst value freedom may not be totally possible, as values can penetrate each stage of the research process, as Becker points out the sociologist should avoid letting any values expose their research to invalidity. Research should be carried out objectively as possible, even if qualitative and subjective methods are being used.
Sociologists disagree about whether sociology can be value free. Value free research is research that is not bias, and does not reflect the researcher’s values or beliefs. Value free research is therefore objective. However, many sociologists have recognised the importance of value relevance. This is how values can affect the research process such as methods used or chosen topic to research.
Positivists argue sociology can be value free. Positivist research attempts to use scientific methodology to explain social phenomena. They therefore believe their research is totally objective and free from biases. Comte believed sociology to be scientific, and thus could be value free if social phenomena were regarded as social facts. Durkheim’s work on suicide shows how positivist research attempts to be value free i.e. by observing social phenomena. However, Durkheim’s work is criticised, particularly by relativists, whom claim that in fact Durkheim’s work could not be explained as positivism, but in fact realism. As Durkheim’s ‘observable facts’ were in fact unobservable e.g. integration.
Although Weber was an interpretivist, he too believed that sociology could be value free. Weber identified the concept of value relevance (how values influence research). Weber argued researchers should avoid making value judgements in research e.g. whether they believe something is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He argued that research should be conducted from a value laden perspective. Weber recognised that once a topic is conceptualised it can be tested by others and objective research is then possible.
However, the research process itself makes value freedom very difficult to achieve. Values are influential throughout the research process; from choosing a topic, defining concepts, choosing methodology and recording results.
On the other hand, interpretivists such as Becker argue that value free research is not possible in sociology. Becker argues all research is contaminated with beliefs. He argues that sociologists cannot avoid taking sides because analysis of behaviour is from the viewpoint of the social actor. Interpretivists argue sociologists should use qualitative methods to understand people’s subjective motives. This is why sociology is very different from and cannot be like the natural sciences Comte and Durkheim compared it to. Although Becker argued that the researcher should not let their sympathies for one group render their research invalid- value freedom is not possible, but validity is.
The political alignment of some social theories also means that value freedom is not possible. For example feminists believe that research should aim to give women a voice, and aim to end patriarchy. This is similar to Marxist theory, which believes the working classes are exploited by the ruling classes, and that classless communism is the only way to end the ills of society. Thus research by Marxist or feminist researchers for example may be bias in order to meet their political agenda or aims e.g. to end patriarchy.
Furthermore, social constructionists such as Luckmann and Beger argue that there is not objective knowledge, because all knowledge is bound up by discourse (or a particular way of seeing the world). Similarly, Gouldner argues there is a myth of value freedom in sociology. He argues that because of domain assumptions (similarly to paradigms). Gomm also argues value freedom is not possible, as sociologists themselves are members of society, which they then study. Their own subjective values and assumptions will thus influence their research.
In conclusion, whilst value freedom may not be totally possible, as values can penetrate each stage of the research process, as Becker points out the sociologist should avoid letting any values expose their research to invalidity. Research should be carried out objectively as possible, even if qualitative and subjective methods are being used.
thanks so mcuh thats a great help!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Sociology Help Thread
- Access to HE Diploma, Stonebridge, (Social Science & health) Assignment 5 HELP
- Alevel sociology wjec/ eduqas crime and deviance
- study buddy!!
- Sociology A level help !!
- Aqa sociology A level
- HELP
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Sociology Study Group 2022-2023
- sociology alevel
- School distance
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 7192/3 - 13 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Help with topics
- A Level AQA Psychology, Sociology, Politics tips ?
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 (7192/3) - 11th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Sociology A-Level
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 1 (7192/1) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- how to revise sociology please a level
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 (7192/3) - 14th June [Exam Chat]
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 11 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadPosted 39 minutes ago
Unit 3 Health and Social Care retake OCRLast reply 44 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 49 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadPosted 1 hour ago
Failed 2 out of 3 exams semester 1 and scared about the 3 I have left in semester 2.Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
Last reply 2 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
159
Last reply 3 months ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 2 (H580/02) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
209
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
159
Last reply 3 months ago
OCR A-level Sociology Paper 2 (H580/02) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Sociology
209
